Why 2015 could be the longest, costliest election campaign ever

As Marx and ABBA both reminded us, it’s a rich man’s world. Or, if we’re talking politics, it’s a rich party’s world. With our first fixed-date federal election a mere five months away, and with the unofficial campaign already well underway, this contest promises to be the costliest in Canadian history.

And when that will happen remains anyone’s guess. Several months ago, pundit Alice Funke pointed out that while the Electoral Reform Act sets a fixed end point for the federal election campaign, it does not set a starting date. The government can call the election whenever it wants — as long as it’s at least 37 days before October 19. Spending limits will then be calculated based on the length of the campaign: Funke even speculated on the possibility of a summer-long slugfest of 77 days and a $100-million limit.

While that might sound crazy by Canadian standards, a seven-week, $35-million campaign might not. Or what about a nine-week, $45-million campaign? Every additional seven days represents roughly $5 million in additional allowable expenses. And that’s $5 million that the Conservatives have — and the other parties don’t.

When you add up all election contributions from individuals and transfers from associations and candidates made since the 2011 vote, the Conservatives leave their opponents in the dust. The Tories raked in $76.1 million from 423,440 donors; the Liberals, $54.9 million from 344,072 donors; the NDP, $31.5 million from 213,282 donors; the Greens, $8.2 million from 77,500 donors, and the Bloc Quebecois, $2.8 million from 15,859 donors.

Setting an early official start date would force the other parties to spend $5 million a week just to match the Tories’ efforts — money they don’t have unless they borrow it, which could weaken them financially for future elections.

And that’s just voluntary contributions. These numbers don’t include the roughly $2 per-vote public subsidy the main parties received until it was eliminated on January 1, 2015, or the 50 per cent reimbursement of 2011 national campaign expenses for parties winning at least 2 per cent support. Electoral district associations also got back 60 per cent of candidates’ expenses in ridings where they took at least 10 per cent of the votes.

In other words, the Tories have every reason to want a long, expensive campaign. Even before it officially starts, their rivals feel obliged to get out of the gate early and start spending down their war chest on ads and counter-ads. But those expenses are not on the order of those of an official campaign. Setting an early official start date would force the other parties to spend $5 million a week just to match the Tories’ efforts — money they don’t have unless they borrow it, which could weaken them financially for future elections.

And this isn’t a temporary condition limited to 2015; this is how federal campaigns must be fought now. With the subsidy dead and buried, parties now rely solely on voluntary donations. Convincing supporters to become donors has become a full-time preoccupation, intimately tied to policy priorities. The parties blitz their supporters when they do or say something they think they’ll like: the Tories on crime bills, the NDP on daycare proposals, the Liberals on their pro-choice views. And they fearmonger: Send money, they’ll say, or the other guys will bring back the gun registry … or gut health care … or outlaw abortion.

And they’ll also ignore certain policy files simply because they don’t pay. When was the last time Conservative supporters got a fundraising email extolling the government’s plans to tackle climate change?

And while donations are capped at $1,500 per person (up from $1,200 as of January 1, 2015), they come disproportionately from higher-income Canadians. A study by University of New Brunswick professor Paul Howe and student Brianna Carmichael, published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 2014, found that “among those giving amounts over $750, 51.7 per cent are in the top income quintile, compared to 8.0 per cent in the bottom quintile … There is also a connection between income and size of donation apparent in mean donation amounts: $485 for the lowest income quintile, compared to $543 for the top income quintile.” Other studies cited by the authors also found that donations vary by age; older Canadians, not surprisingly, tend to donate more than younger Canadians.

So it’s probably no coincidence that this election promises to be all about the preoccupations of the middle-aged middle class: family benefits, taxes, security and retirement savings. This is despite the fact that many of the problems ascribed to Canada’s middle class actually belong to the working class, and the fact that fewer seniors live in poverty (12 per cent) than do members of the general population (13.8 per cent). So nobody’s really talking about the needs of low-income Canadians and the young. Where is the next proposal to end child poverty, or to create jobs for millennials?

All of which begs a question: Are parties pandering to the priorities of the over-45 middle-to-upper income voters because they’re the people who pay the bills? Instead of “democratizing” elections with fixed dates and individual limits, it appears we’ve skewed them even further in favour of people with deep pockets — and the parties that are able to convince them to pony up.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

15 comments on “Why 2015 could be the longest, costliest election campaign ever”

We have a fear based thinking process. It is proof we evolved from fish. It is fast, too rational and far too resolute.Useful when we are confronted by much bigger fish in the pond. If you think Justin Trudeau is not ready you think as a fish not as a human being. Park that fear based thinking process. Get rid of Stephen Harper.

I have a few twenty year olds lined up with a seasoned writer to repeat this message in different articles.

This is hilarious coming from you Donnie. You’re totally convinced that somehow the PM’s lack of support for Global Warming is putting your life in “existential danger” even though he’s done more to reduce smog and increase park sizes than any PM in history. Talk about fear mongering….

The idea of confusing people that doing something about dirty air is doing something about climate change came from evil Christian conservatives politicians in the U.S.

“It was interesting to hear the lies that ‘Stephen Harper’ told them with such conviction, and to see the emphatic gestures with which ‘he’ underlined them.”

The above observation was made by Rudolf Hoess who needed lots of help getting people into gas chambers. Liars he found were much better at it than thugs. Liars who have no regrets. Our best of species liars without remorse are our psychopaths. It is not their fault. Psychopaths do what psychopaths do. The fault is with organizations that lie so need our best of species liars, psychopaths. This is the big lie of Stephen Harper’s Christian conservatism.

“The right knows that facts and reason have a liberal bent. That’s why their decades-long strategy is to lie”

Donnie – have you read the book “Resisting the Green Dragon…”? Check out the line of thinking the US Christian Right has on the environment. Sadly, we have our Canadian imitators. Harper has links to the “Cornwall Alliance”.

Thank you for this. It confirms for me that Christian conservatism has not changed for 1200 years since 666 AD. It facilitates Death for Its god. I can see Stephen Harper noding in agreement to the following words.

“God ordained the state, which by its nature is a monopoly of legalised force, to enforce justice. And justice means rendering impartially to everyone his due, according to the righteous standard of God’s moral law. He did not ordain the state to dispense grace. That’s the role of the Church. When the state starts trying to dispense grace it necessarily transgresses the bounds of justice and winds up doing more harm than good. This is the very beginnings of my theological foundation of my reasoning in support of a much more free-market approach to economics, as opposed to a governmentally managed, centrally planned, neurotically arranged market.”

Donation limits are not contributing to undemocratic elections, but perhaps the ceiling cutoff is, if we are to put any stock in the limited evidence provided here. I think we all know the wealthy have ways and means unavailable to the non-wealthy, but if roughly 52% of people donating at amounts over $750 are high income people, why not decrease, rather than increase, the per-donation, per-person cap? And reinstate subsidies to parties?

The moneyed will always have more influence, and will always favour pro-money, pro-rich policies, which are typically enacted by the Conservatives and Liberals. This is in itself anti-democratic (e.g., one person, one vote), so efforts should be in place to contain their considerable political power. Of course these have been largely failed to date. So many of these big money individuals and groups have ties to each other, and formal or informal lobbying capabilities, that it seems unlikely that we will contain their purview, but we must.

So do you include fake lakes and such in the calculations. We need election monitors so ensure the CPC trolls are not able to implement Harper robocall strategies. An even playing field is not where Harper feels most comfortable. What a waste of money! Turf Alliance Steve.